[DSims]

My contribution:
I remember reading on this forum that a member asked a Pentax representative what was the dfiference between DA40/2.8 and FA43 and the reply was that the former was more suited to architecture and performance at infinity and the latter to skin tones and performance at close focous.

Also, The color differences could be mitigated with the use of a Macbeth color chart and a profile editor (Such as X-rite colorchecker or much cheaper CameraTrax and the Adobe profile editor). There one can modify Saturation, hue and lightness for each color and this can be done for each combination of sensor + lens so that any contribution of the lens is neutralized. I think this would be an interesting test for a CCD vs CMOS using the same lens. Also, for two lenses of the same focal length by different manufacturer, compare two unprofiled pictures and two profiled pictures using the same sensor. Both this tests would make sense using lenses with distinctive quaities. DA15 comes to mind, I´ll see if I can do the first test

I think 'mitigate' was a good word choice because you'll only be able to partially compensate or adjust for the differences. If you run a test it will be interesting to see just how much it adjusts.

The DA*16-50 is probably different enough from the DA15. It would be even better if you had a Samyang 14 or 16, or a Sigma 8-16.

---------- Post added 05-16-14 at 12:55 PM ----------

Practice post processing; infinitely more control, less time consuming (compared to interviewing and auditioning lenses), drastically less expensive and you aren't locked into your favourite look on every picture, for all eternity.

How about doing both? Anything less would be short-changing oneself.

[RGlasel]

Anything less would be short-changing oneself.

Life is too short to spend much of it trying to find the "right" lens. The ROI of time to better capture what you see in your mind's eye is much higher for PP than for serial dating pieces of glass. The ROI of disposable income is also much higher for PP. Find a few good pieces of glass and settle down instead of always hunting for something sexier.

[CreationBear]

drastically less expensive

Good advice, no doubt--though the price of the Apple Thunderbolt monitors I was looking at the other day was eye-opening, to say the least!

[DSims]

good advice, no doubt--though the price of the apple thunderbolt monitors i was looking at the other day was eye-opening, to say the least!

LOL !



My kit is pretty well set, so I'm not looking around for other lenses, but if I had a real specific project in a setting like CreationBear mentioned, and my current lenses weren't doing it for me, I'd still look for something else.

[Nicolas06]

The lenses have different rendering, for sure. Me for example I have seen the DA21 rendering and I really like it. The FA50 is sometime very pleasing, but I'am not so found in fact of the green casts in border OOF zones. DA35 is yet another story, but pleasing.

And I agree that in PP, this is very difficult to change the rendering in a pleasing way. But this is possible.

Using DxO Film pack for example I manage to get very pleasing skin tones and nice looking portraits, just by choosing one film of the pack optimized for it. This kind of change, I cannot make just by moving a few sliders through. I don't know if it is possible otherwise. I would say no, the software is not meant for that.

PP is not the only factor by far, but it can help more than one might think.